http://zynaddsubfx.sourceforge.net/
'Tick

Nope, but it looks interesting. I might give it a try later this day...

Yes, yes... after trying out the new Rhino, of course
'Tick

Quote:

Please don't use this program to make music that is against God and Jesus Christ (eg. HeavyMetal, NewAge,..etc..). Think that the only way to the Salvation is Jesus Christ. Please don't lose this chance and don't make others to lose it!

Yeah, everybody knows that the good lord hates loud guitars and screaming singers. Is this the birth of a new liscensing scheme ??? Faith ware

Quote:

Please don't use this program to make music that is against God and Jesus Christ (eg. HeavyMetal, NewAge,..etc..). Think that the only way to the Salvation is Jesus Christ. Please don't lose this chance and don't make others to lose it!

Fucking hell! Almost makes we want to downlowd the peice of shite and write a new age satanist death metel track.

I'm glad somebody finally has the guts to stand up to Heavy metal & newage -- they've been in cahoots for years! And I ain't too sure about them rap boys neither.

bob and gang, he is a regilious man and wanted to say his part..........play nice or go to your room

Big Tick wrote:

Yes, yes... after trying out the new Rhino, of course 'Tick

If you improved more than the sound of the filters since 1.05 I might give the Demo another try

I hope you don't get me wrong, I'm probably a bit picky when it comes to FM/PM synths, since I have lots of Hard- and Soft FM-Synths to compare with...

New Age??

when i think of New Age.. I think of Enya and Yanni.. really peaceful, relaxing, and sometimes uplifting music.. no negative themes.. maybe im not hearing the new age they are listening to...

There's this weird theory that some Fundies have about the "New Age Movement" being a tool of Satan to lure people into one huge global cult (kinda like that Jasmine character on Angel lately). And of course the fact that New Age music doesn't have a damn thing to do with New Age philosophy and most New Age musicians hate being called New Age, doesn't occur to them either.

I also heard a theory once, from a stump preacher at the college I went to, that all music that doesn't specifically glorify Jesus is evil, including instrumentals. I wish I'd thought to ask him if practicing scales was a sin too.

It is not a VST yet.

PA

VitaminD wrote:

New Age?? when i think of New Age.. I think of Enya and Yanni.. really peaceful, relaxing, and sometimes uplifting music.. no negative themes.. maybe im not hearing the new age they are listening to...

Weird innit?

All I can think of is that 'new age' music has, for a lot people , got this connection with paganism, healing crystals, etc etc etc.

Its hardly 'smash the state' kind of stuff is it though.

I am the great God Ornithopteryx I am responsible for Clannad and my best friend is Arthur Brown!
Whuhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahah

fucking pillock

coincidentally, i think this synth is great for newage (pads) ! it claims to sound natural - i think it does.

New age music isn't evil.... it's all that weird dancing that God hates so much. ...the dance floor is the devils playground you know!

I only use VSTi's that have not been endorced by God anyway.

Kidding.......does that really have to be mentioned on the web page??? Besides, what is a Christian progammer calling his creation "Zyn" for? Sounds pretty close to "Sin" doesn't it?.

I've already had a Bailey's in my coffee this evening and I'm feeling a little frisky...sorry if I offended anyone.

dano

You have to respect someone who speaks up for his beliefs when so many others are afraid to. It is sad when so many people think it is "cool" to criticize people who stand up for their beliefs. Maybe it is an insecurity thing.

Anyway, it is his software. Since when does he not have a right to make suggestions on its use?

Robert

Some people think it makes you "cool" to stand up for people that are being critisized for saying what they beleive in.

Chill Rabid....even God has a sense of humour.

dano

Rabid wrote:

You have to respect someone who speaks up for his beliefs when so many others are afraid to. It is sad when so many people think it is "cool" to criticize people who stand up for their beliefs. Maybe it is an insecurity thing.

I applaud his courage in standing up for his beliefs.

However I also think his beliefs show him to be a twit.

His short sighted bigoted views are insulting to people who compose, perform, and enjoy heavy metal and new age music, since I have little doubt that he associates "against God and Jesus Christ" with evil.

We're criticizing what he said, not the fact that he said it.

I agree Rabid.. its his software and he has a say on it..

You have to look at their point of view.. Its like most other religions.. its the lone path.. tolerance on a human level has to occur.. most of you arent showing tolerance..

he doesnt need tolerance for your musical taste/reasons.. because hes not forcing you to use this synth.

...its not like he stuffed it down your throat.. no one is forced to go to that webpage or use his synth. He even said "please" in his statements

... so this thread looks like a bunch of people harking over someone having/standing up for their religious views.. views that werent forced upon you.. like rabid said.. its his synth..

if you dont want to use it.. dont... no need to trash the guy or his views..

thats my 2 bits.

I agree with vitaminD

VitaminD wrote:

I agree Rabid.. its his software and he has a say on it.. (snip) he doesnt need tolerance for your musical taste/reasons.. because hes not forcing you to use this synth.

Speaking as a synth developer, I like it when people respect my wishes regarding licensing (telling me what they create with it, not sharing registration codes, not redistributing my software without my documentation). So when I saw that guy's site, I said to myself "I can't accept his terms, so I won't use his software." His loss, really.

Borogove wrote:

VitaminD wrote: I agree Rabid.. its his software and he has a say on it.. (snip) he doesnt need tolerance for your musical taste/reasons.. because hes not forcing you to use this synth. Speaking as a synth developer, I like it when people respect my wishes regarding licensing (telling me what they create with it, not sharing registration codes, not redistributing my software without my documentation). So when I saw that guy's site, I said to myself "I can't accept his terms, so I won't use his software." His loss, really.

Thanks Russ, well said. I would like to point out that he is (super)imposing his belief system (God/Satan etc.) on a bunch of people (New Agers, Heavy Metallers, Patchwork Cats etc.) who likely as not don't really believe in this guy's devil(s).
So let him keep his synth.

Borogove wrote:

So when I saw that guy's site, I said to myself "I can't accept his terms, so I won't use his software."

Pretty much what I thought. I don't like to completely ignore a developers' wishes when it comes to use of his/her software.

Another synth that looks interesting but will never be on my computer.

In terms of new age music being double un-good, I believe it is because it is meditative and many fundamental Christian groups believe meditation to be double plus un-good.

The idea is that when you mediate you go into a vague floaty state that allows Satan to easily enter via the back door so to speak. Unfortunately this attitude completely misunderstands what meditation is and how it works as your mind is quite often far more focused than when in a completely awake state.

Heavy Metal is...well...heavy metal. Probably sounds like the cacaphony of all the lost souls screaming in Hell or something. Although to keep religion alive don't you always have to be aware of the enemy? If nothing else heavy metal reminds you of the dangers of Satan so as a constant reminder/lesson, I would say it would have to be double plus good.

well the developer is from Romania.. I doubt english is his native tongue.. I think he was meaning secular vs religous.. *shrugs*

I don't share the author's theological views...

...but I find it pleasantly surprising that many participants in this thread reacted to it with considerably more respect than was demonstrated by other members of the same board not so long ago.

new age is associated with spirituality, paganism, wicca, etc. - activities and pursuits that are prohibited in the bible. there is metal (dunno about new age) music out there that mock christianity. while he may be taking this too far he also has a point. if you don't mean to affront anyone with your music i don't see why you shouldn't use the software, feel offended in anyway or complain.


discuss the synth maybe ?

Sorry, but I don't respect his beliefs. Believing that certain styles of music is evil is narrow-minded and ignorant. Many God fearing Christians listen to & write music in these genres.
That's my belief, and I don't really care if you respect it. I will respect his licence agreement, however, and not download it.

Dingo865 wrote:

I don't share the author's theological views... ...but I find it pleasantly surprising that many participants in this thread reacted to it with considerably more respect than was demonstrated by other members of the same board not so long ago.

Damn Dingo. I'd never seen that thread. Would've loved to contribute to it.

I think my favourite name was "OHNODADDY".

Sorry - I know it can be easy to write off such comments as completely disrespectful, here and in the other thread, but I have beliefs too and they're about the light-hearted side of serious themes.

I think a person's religious belief should remain serious to them. They may not remain serious to me, but I will try to respect that. However that other person will have to tolerate my lack of seriousness at the same time as I tolerate their seriousness.

You know, in Melbourne they opened a cocktail bar called Virgin Marys. The kind of crap that went on then - you should have seen it. They were bullied into changing the name to VMs. How pathetic. I really don't have much respect at all for the groups who applied that pressure however, I would have respected them stating that they would not give this bar any patronage. And hey - they were gay-hating Christians anyway whose largest objection was that the Virgin Mary would be somehow associated with gay people. Death to them all I say.

However, the closest I will always come to sacrificing someone's religious "freedoms" is when those beliefs compromise the basic human freedoms of another person - and even then I would have to weigh it up carefully. (eg any religion that promotes the idea of oppressing women gets me particularly angry, but I would still have to consider the negative impacts upon such a religion being targetted for extinction).

This person is not doing that with his synth and mikelhbek (spelling) was not doing that with his last post. So I might scoff at his beliefs as I would fully expect him to scoff at mine - in fact, I can completely appreciate people scoffing at me as I am a Libran and you can't get much more pathetic than that.



In any case, is there some neo-Christian out there who's allowed to try out this thing? Is it any good?

sorry - nothing to add to this debate that hasnt already been said [ie - let the guy express his wishes and respect them if you feel able to - just dont knock him for it] but just needed to say -

[PLANTINGTONGUEINCHEEKJUSTINCASEYOUGETOFFENDED]

djfullshreddedwheat wrote:

Many God fearing Christians listen to & write music in these genres.

yeah but - FOR CHRISTS SAKE !!! - stryper !?!

[/PLANTINGTONGUEINCHEEKJUSTINCASEYOUGETOFFENDED]

slainte rob

eXpeRIMentFOUR wrote:

sorry - nothing to add to this debate that hasnt already been said [ie - let the guy express his wishes and respect them if you feel able to - just dont knock him for it] but just needed to say - [PLANTINGTONGUEINCHEEKJUSTINCASEYOUGETOFFENDED] djfullshreddedwheat wrote: Many God fearing Christians listen to & write music in these genres. yeah but - FOR CHRISTS SAKE !!! - stryper !?! [/PLANTINGTONGUEINCHEEKJUSTINCASEYOUGETOFFENDED] slainte rob

Well...I didn't say they were any good at it.

Don't take me wrong: I'm all for debate, including ripping apart someone else's beliefs - as long as a) it adresses the thesis and not the person expressing it, b) it's an educated opinion and not some half-assed, illiterate, prejudiced blurb, and c) it doesn't confuse someone's simple expression of their beliefs with someone's obsession to enforce them upon others.

I think K-v-R has handled this issue in this thread with class.

Personally, I feel the views of the synth's author are ridiculous, and the condition comes close to indicating the obsession part (though I cannot clearly support as to why I feel like that), but I still think he doesn't cross the border.

As I said before, if you invite a religious Muslim to dinner, and he rejects the invitation because he is told that the food will be made from pork, he isn't trying to force you into conversion, nor is he trying to boycott that dinner. He simply tells you that, under the present circumstances, he is unable to attend your dinner. In this case, it applies both ways...

...and it looks like I'm not eating his synth.

Dingo865 wrote:

As I said before, if you invite a religious Muslim to dinner, and he rejects the invitation because he is told that the food will be made from pork, he isn't trying to force you into conversion, nor is he trying to boycott that dinner. He simply tells you that, under the present circumstances, he is unable to attend your dinner. In this case, it applies both ways...

hmm with "class" huh?

if this was true.. you'd then have to make ugly jokes about islam and rip apart his beliefs..

some "class".

VitaminD wrote:

hmm with "class" huh? if this was true.. you'd then have to make ugly jokes about islam and rip apart his beliefs.. some "class".

Don't knock it. Nothing wrong with a few ugly jokes about islam. Can be just as funny as the ugly blond jokes, gay jokes, Irish jokes, fat jokes, abortion jokes and vegetarian jokes.

But I think it's important to rip apart beliefs, otherwise you'll never know if there's smarties inside.

But how can he be contributing to open source development when he puts restrictions on its use?

there are all kinds of propritary licenses on a lot of opensource software... thats a form of limitation...

so he puts limitations on the software use/song creation.. he didnt put a limitation on its development.. which is what the whole opensource thing deals with

Dingo865 wrote:

..... As I said before, if you invite a religious Muslim to dinner, and he rejects the invitation because he is told that the food will be made from pork, he isn't trying to force you into conversion, nor is he trying to boycott that dinner. He simply tells you that, under the present circumstances, he is unable to attend your dinner. In this case, it applies both ways...

That is a good analogy. I get a bit defensive because religious people seem to be an easy mark on music forums. Some people seem to really enjoy ganging up on them, slamming them at every opportunity. If they turn the other cheek they get slammed again. If they retaliate they get slammed for not being a good passive follower. It is a shame because there are some great musicians who are also religious. Instead of respecting their beliefs and showing a bit of tolerance some people seem to take joy in antagonizing them until they finally leave. I understand if people don’t want to be pressured into following the same beliefs as the religious person. Just remember that works both ways. Show a bit of tolerance for those who are different.

Ok. Back to making music. That’s what we are here for. Well, that and the occasional good argument. Or is that God argument?

Robert

Caleb wrote:

But I think it's important to rip apart beliefs, otherwise you'll never know if there's smarties inside.

Nice line Caleb. I'll have to nick that for use in the real world

Well, I won't be downloading this synth.

Personally, I can't stand anything to do with any kind of doctrine where the institution is served, rather than the individual.
I can honestly not understand why peolpe continue to hold such blind faith in a tome whose origin is unknown, whose author is unknown, whose text and contents are so widely open to interpretation, whose content is so self contradictory, that has been mistranslated (both accidentally and deliberatly), and used & twisted by the Religious elite as a tool for control of the populace for centuries etc etc.

I also hate such ignorant, sweeping generalisations . I doubt this guy has ever listened to anything remotely "heavy metal" and is equally as clueless as to the level of musical talent and song writing skill it takes to write an album matching the beauty and intensity of Blackwater Park by Opeth.

Does the coder of this synth really imagine his god to be so impotent (not in the saucy sense - as opposed to omnipotent) that "He" (I never know how one can attribute sex to a godhead - kinda indicative of the smallmindedness of those who subscribe to religious doctrines of this nature) is going to be concerned about songs written against "Him". If god has the power to produce something as hugley complex, intreguing and breathtakingly beautiful as this universe, is "He" really going to be in the slightest bit peeved at some bedroom composer plotting against "Him" in the midnight hours...?

Rant over.
TnB

TitsNbuMs wrote:

.... Personally, I can't stand anything to do with any kind of doctrine where the institution is served, rather than the individual. I can honestly not understand why peolpe continue to hold such blind faith in a tome whose origin is unknown, .....

Quote:

I also hate such ignorant, sweeping generalisations

ROFL. So do I. So do I.

Robert

Hey Robert,
Ahhh.... I get it !
My post was a sweeping generalisation too!!

The things said about the bible are all true. Not sweeping generalisations.

It was not a sweeping generalisation of me to state that I can't understand why people continue to hold faith in the English translation of a Hebrew text of unknown origin. That was an expression of oppinon.
Had I stated that "all people who hold faith in the bible are morons" THAT would have been a bit of a generalisation.

OK, toodle pip.
TnB

And the lord looked upon his creation and saw that it was good. And he spaketh "Go my people and be free". And the people responded with one voice "What's all this free will shit, Lord?. Give us some fucking clue". The lord heard them in their confusion and commanded "Love one another". Still unsure the people turned to the devil and again asked with one voice "Well God gave us some good advice, but there's got to be more to it than that, what you got to say Dev?"
And the Devil pointed to God and said to the people "Worship him"

I guess what I am really saying TnB, is that since the days of Columbus people have refused to believe anything that was not currently proven and do so in the name of science. Back then people believed the earth was flat because they had no proof otherwise. When AIDs first appeared doctors believed that the only way to catch HIV was through sexual intercourse and tried to discredit those who though otherwise because of their lack of proof. Lack of proof is not proof for the opposition. What confuses me is the belief that life can exists on other planets. Many people who refuse to acknowledge the possible existence of God because of lack of proof believe there is life on other planets, even with a lack of proof. I’m not willing to discount anything just because it is beyond my understanding or has not yet been scientifically proven.

Robert

Robert,
The existance, or otherwise, of God is not scientifically provable as the question is unfalsifiable. From the sci.sceptic faq http://home.xnet.com/~blatura/skeptic.shtml :-

Quote:

An important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypotheis is that it be "falsifiable". This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable. On the other hand the theory that "there is an invisible snorg reading this over your shoulder" is not falsifiable. There is no experiment or possible evidence that could prove that invisible snorgs do not exist. So the Snorg Hypothesis is not scientific. On the other hand, the "Negative Snorg Hypothesis" (that they do not exist) is scientific. You can disprove it by catching one. Similar arguments apply to yetis, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster.

Ooopps sorry, wrong forum....

whats that donkey
some drinking buddies from the local pub?

There's nothing wrong with speaking your opinion of something until he crossed the line proclaiming "New age" as being evil. I have dabbled in this genre and I can assure you, the devil was the last thing on my mind. How short sighted is that?

It's this kind of religious zealotry that makes me laugh and it's the same kind of attitude that has started wars since the dawn of man. Nobody ever died because of "New age".

Sure, he can say what he wants about his reasons for not using his software, and he has every right to, but his narrow minded thinking is what is sad, not that people have an opinion about it.

dano

ps.....good post donks

TitsNbuMs wrote:

Personally, I can't stand anything to do with any kind of doctrine where the institution is served, rather than the individual.

Read: ANY doctrine (as in: any philosophy, principle, ideology, worldview, weltanschaaung, etc.), especially in the post-modern age.

TitsNbuMs wrote:

I can honestly not understand why peolpe continue to hold such blind faith in a tome whose origin is unknown, whose author is unknown, whose text and contents are so widely open to interpretation, whose content is so self contradictory, that has been mistranslated (both accidentally and deliberatly), and used & twisted by the Religious elite as a tool for control of the populace for centuries etc etc.

But you presume that religious people hold "blind faith". It's interesting that so many non-religious people, especially in this forum, assume that if someone is religious, they must be blind.

Besides of which, all the qualifiers you list above (mitranslated, misused, etc.) are unnecessary: I wouldn't accept blind faith in anything, whether I know the authors or not - and there are plenty of 'tomes' whose authors are known etc. and are responsible for more murders than one can comprehend. Das Kapital & Mein Kampf come to mind...

Look, no rant or anger, just a personal reflection: try to look at faith in a certain religion not merely - or even necessarily - as a product, but as a process, a method of, and approach to, thinking of and analyzing perceived reality.

Obviously, I cannot talk in the name of others, but from my point of view, I have certain principles that I hold dear to my heart. I'm not fanatic about them (and I don't always live up to them); I simply choose them to guide me, and I stick to my choices. But these principles are not dogmas, and they also provide me with a framework to continuously revise, update, and reevaluate the content of the principles. For me, believing in G_d is a way to keep myself and my place in the Cosmos in perspective, a way to keep myself connected to something that's always beyond my immediate grasp, something I can always aspire to - something that always leaves open a window, even when all doors appear to be closed - and at the same time something that always leaves room for more questions. I may be dead-wrong, or I may hold the secret to the Cosmos (and, obviously, I think it's the latter ), but as long as I don't force you to worship me, all I ask is that you don't call me a blind idiot.

...which is not to say that anybody called me that - or that I'm not a blind idiot.

Jeez, Donk! Where did you dig that picture of Venom from ?

TnB

nuffink,
The concept of unfalsifiable is intriguing, both in its methods, ideology, and limitations of era. Life on other planets may seem unfalsifiable in a time when even flight is unimaginable. But today it is a focus of scientific studies. An invisible monster may seem unfalsifiable before the development of infra red cameras, sonar, etc. It would be interesting to see how currently “unfalsibiable” theories of today will be handled 500 years from now when new technologies bring new abilities.

Unfalsifiable. I've learned a new concept today. Thanks nuffink.

Robert

Dingo865 wrote:

[ But you presume that religious people hold "blind faith". It's interesting that so many non-religious people, especially in this forum, assume that if someone is religious, they must be blind.

Eh? how many people said that? You are exaggerating, bad sign mate.
I never said I was unreligious, just not Xtian. I understand how some people find the bible inspiring- something 'strikes home', though many just have it culturally imprinted and others see something that backs up their bigotry.
I pointed out that fundamentalists are superimposing their beliefs on others by proclaiming their work to be 'of the devil'.
I would like to hear some of them take that back, maybe we could organise a mass lawsuit. It's not just 'their belief', it's a sodding insult. There is religious tolerance and there's a limit

patchworkcat wrote:

Dingo865 wrote: But you presume that religious people hold "blind faith". It's interesting that so many non-religious people, especially in this forum, assume that if someone is religious, they must be blind. Eh? how many people said that? You are exaggerating, bad sign mate.

Nope, I'm not. I purposefully used the terms "so many" and "on this board". This doesn't mean every non-religious person - in which case that's what I would've written - and it doesn't mean only this thread. If you check other threads in the same vein, I believe my statement will hold up pretty well.

patchworkcat wrote:

I never said I was unreligious, just not Xtian.

True, that was a false presumption on my part. I'm not Xtian either, though.

patchworkcat wrote:

I pointed out that fundamentalists are superimposing their beliefs on others by proclaiming their work to be 'of the devil'.

As I said, I thought the software developer's statements were ridiculous. Having said that, if I believe the cake you baked tastes bad, stating that will not be a 'superimposition of my belief' upon you even if you like your cake. It will be simply a statement of my feelings/beliefs. Otherwise, using your logic, your statement about fundamentalists qualifies just as much as a 'superimposition' of your beliefs upon fundamentalists.

Stating one's opinion is not the same as forcing someone else to hold the same opinion. It's the basis of human communication.

Your message would've been clearer if you had actually specified that you talked about fundamentalists. In this case, however, it would also have to be pointed out that your statements don't apply to religious people only (which, after all, was the main subject), since all ideologies have their fundamentalists, whether those ideologies be religious or secular/profane.

I'm releasing a plugin called Oh My God 2 which will be for athiest only as I believe all post 20C religious music is crap. But I love Gregorian Chant so those guys can use it. Any problems with this?

Rabid wrote:

nuffink, The concept of unfalsifiable is intriguing, both in its methods, ideology, and limitations of era. Life on other planets may seem unfalsifiable in a time when even flight is unimaginable. But today it is a focus of scientific studies. An invisible monster may seem unfalsifiable before the development of infra red cameras, sonar, etc. It would be interesting to see how currently “unfalsibiable” theories of today will be handled 500 years from now when new technologies bring new abilities. Unfalsifiable. I've learned a new concept today. Thanks nuffink. Robert

Robert,
Chase down that link I posted. Much food for thought for the enquiring mind.

TitsNbuMs wrote:

Jeez, Donk! Where did you dig that picture of Venom from ? TnB

'Lay down your souls to the gods rock and rooooollllllll,,,,,'

Newcastles finest!


Actually I typed in 'venom' as a google image search....... it came up with those geordie cuntmeisters!

djfullshred wrote:

yeah but - FOR CHRISTS SAKE !!! - stryper !?! Well...I didn't say they were any good at it.

Well you didn't have to, did you?

Dingo865 wrote:

patchworkcat wrote: Dingo865 wrote: But you presume that religious people hold "blind faith". It's interesting that so many non-religious people, especially in this forum, assume that if someone is religious, they must be blind. Eh? how many people said that? You are exaggerating, bad sign mate. Nope, I'm not. I purposefully used the terms "so many" and "on this board". This doesn't mean every non-religious person - in which case that's what I would've written - and it doesn't mean only this thread. If you check other threads in the same vein, I believe my statement will hold up pretty well.

er, I don't have to, it's YOUR statement, you back it up with a lot of posts saying that religious people are blind- 'blind'- my arse and I won't even justify the rest of your crap post by answering it.

so has anyone tried this out yet??????

actually [and back on T ] -

i did try it out just to see - but gave up after about 5 mins - additive synths are confusing anyway but thing has a really bitty gui - lots of extra windows and crowded panels

sounds ok if thats your thang - standalone only though so deleted pretty quickly here

ill stick with the mighty rhino for my simple additive needs for now

slainte rob